Damn Interesting

Not Your Average Summer Camp

In the summer of 1954, twenty-two fifth-grade boys were taken out to a campground at Robbers Cave State Park, Oklahoma. Admittance had been quite selective. None of the boys knew each other. They were taken to the park in two separate groups of eleven. Ostensibly it was an unremarkable summer camp.

In fact, what the boys were heading to wasn’t that at all. They did have a very normal camp experience, certainly, but what they had really done for two and a half weeks was unwittingly take part in an elaborate and fascinating psychological experiment. Their parents had okayed it: the twenty-two boys of Robbers Cave were actually the basis of social psychologist Muzafer Sherif’s landmark study of group conflict.

There were two parts to Sherif’s hypothesis:

(1) When individuals having no established relationships are brought together to interact in group activities with common goals, they produce a group structure with hierarchical statuses and roles within it.

(2) If two in-groups thus formed are brought into a functional relationship under conditions of competition and group frustration, attitudes and appropriate hostile actions in relation to the out-group and its members will arise and will be standardized and shared in varying degrees by group members.

After conceiving of the experiment and working out the logistics of its program and setting— a Boy Scouts’ campground— Sherif and his colleagues had chosen their campers carefully. To decrease the potential impact of variables (other factors that could prompt hostility), Sherif and his colleagues had looked for boys of similar age and intelligence, all Caucasian and Protestant, all middle-class, none from insecure homes and none known to be troublemakers. They had aimed for a balance of different kinds of mental and physical strengths. It was also very deliberate that the boys had never met before; this was in accordance with the first part of Sherif’s hypothesis. Any preformed alliances would throw off the study.

The aim was to establish immediately a sense of group unity within each group of eleven boys. Taking the two groups to Robbers Cave separately was a major part of this; it also kept the other side wholly unknown. None of the boys were even aware yet that there was a second group. That would only be revealed once a strong sense of group identity had been forged.

Once at the park, the activities continued to encourage the groups to work together. These were typical aspects of camp: preparing food, putting up the tents, etc. They also played sports, went swimming, and performed for each other. This was all very successful – in fact, as the boys bonded each of the two groups chose to give itself a name, which was not an intentional part of the experiment. One became the Eagles, the other the Rattlers. Precisely as Sherif had hypothesized, there came to be a social order very quickly in each group. Clear leaders emerged from both. And, as the boys became vaguely aware that theirs was not the only group, they actually asked to be put into competition with them.

This, of course, was exactly what the psychologists had planned to happen. The two groups were brought together. They would be pitted against each other in a lengthy tournament of sports and other challenges; the winner would be awarded a medal and a pocketknife. The psychologists’ aim was to prompt each team to see the other as an ‘enemy’ of sorts, and test the second part of the hypothesis.

Again, the predictions were confirmed; this is exactly what happened. The boys began calling the other team names almost immediately, while glorifying the members of their own ‘side’. They threatened to fight members of the opposing team. The Eagles snuck into the Rattlers’ camp, stole their flag, and burned it. The Rattlers returned the gesture. As this happened, the more aggressive boys became the more popular within their groups. After the Eagles won the competition, the Rattlers invaded their tents and took whatever knives and medals they could find. Although the park had been named for the suspicion that Wild West outlaws Jesse James and Belle Star had once hidden there, “Robbers Cave” was beginning to seem an apt name for the camp.

Then came the most interesting twist: the noncompetitive activities. Both groups were again brought together, just for meals and other such basic settings. The hostility did not die down; the groups remained locked in animosity. So the psychologists tried something a bit more assertive: forcing the boys to all work together in a cooperative effort, to achieve what are called superordinate goals.

They did this in several stages. First, the water supply to the camp was cut off (thereby necessitating as much help to check the pipes as necessary). Then, they were offered a movie that they were told the camp wasn’t quite able to pay for (and each team paid equally). Finally, a broken-down truck was deliberately left on the premises of the camp; nearby one of the organizers had left a tug-of-war rope to see whether any of the boys would suggest using it. Sure enough, one of them did – and all the boys, Eagle and Rattler alike, pulled on the rope together to help get the truck started again.

The changes after this point were striking indeed. The exchange of insults abruptly ended, for the most part. Neither side seemed to bear much of a grudge for the earlier thefts and enmity. Several pairs of boys from opposite teams made friends. But it didn’t stop there; at the end of the two and a half weeks, the campers insisted that the camp leaders allow them all to travel home on the same bus, instead of the divided way in which they had arrived. On this bus, they did not sit according to their earlier groups. Furthermore, at one point the bus stopped at a café. The Rattlers, who had won money in a contest during the ‘competitive’ stage, spent their money not only on themselves but on the Eagles as well.

Overall, the experiment was seen as a success. Not only had both aspects of Sherif’s hypothesis been verified, but several further conclusions had been reached. One was the observation that removing the boys from the competitive settings was not enough to reverse intergroup hostility. Another was that major differences in background are not necessary for conflict to emerge.

The Robbers Cave experiment has been somewhat criticized more recently. Some psychologists point out that such conflicts between groups depends on a high degree of group identity and loyalty. Others argue that if the two groups had failed to achieve the superordinate goals, the groups would have blamed each other, thus exacerbating the conflict instead of relieving it. Still more say that the experiment has little real-world applicability due to there being so many more variables involved in real conflicts – on the worldwide scale, for example. However, through their intricate planning, Sherif and his colleagues had laid the groundwork for what would come to be known as the realistic group conflict theory, which has come to be invaluable in psychology, sociology, and economics. Also, as a nice side-effect, they had given twenty-two boys from Oklahoma City quite a few new friends.

Related Content

Maybe the answer to world peace was just a simple one: a common goal. Space race, anyone?

Marius

Posted 02 July 2006 at 02:35 am

An interesting experiment to be sure, but I can’t help but wonder what the results would have been had the two groups been from very different backgrounds. These kids all sound like they came from essentially the same type of moral structure, and therefore responded to social stimuli in a similar fashion. It might be interesting to take a group of WASP children and pair them off with a group of inner city African American children and see if the initial findings are replicated.

elgatitoandaluz

Posted 02 July 2006 at 03:21 am

Marius got the point!
I am sure that the fact that they were from similar backgrounds influenced in the sense that they could not differenciate culturally from the others. would it be the same with a group of protestants and catholic? or one group from california and another from ohio? My view is that any identifiable cultural difference would have reinforced the chances of the conflict to scalate. :(
Still didinskee, the common goal cant be space race, i dont think US wants to share much of their space superiority with other countries…For me the broken down truck is our environment, a common aim to join people across the world :)

sincerely yours
elgatitoandaluz

Quarter_witted

Posted 02 July 2006 at 03:21 am

Damn Interesting they could achieve all this in just two and half weeks. Now just think of what would have happened if they used girls as the test subjects. Frozen underwear escalating into hair flying slap fights?

another viewpoint

Posted 02 July 2006 at 05:53 am

Marius said: “An interesting experiment to be sure, but I can’t help but wonder what the results would have been had the two groups been from very different backgrounds. These kids all sound like they came from essentially the same type of moral structure, and therefore responded to social stimuli in a similar fashion. It might be interesting to take a group of WASP children and pair them off with a group of inner city African American children and see if the initial findings are replicated.”

I agree…I was a little suspicious as soon as I read at the beginning of the story…”Sherif and his colleagues had chosen their campers carefully. To decrease the potential impact of variables (other factors that could prompt hostility), Sherif and his colleagues had looked for boys of similar age and intelligence, all Caucasian and Protestant, all middle-class, none from insecure homes and none known to be troublemakers.”

Sounds as if some doctorate candidate was looking for theory after already having an observation. Then again, you can’t make a case out of 22 campers. You’re two short!

Mez

Posted 02 July 2006 at 05:57 am

didinskee said: “Maybe the answer to world peace was just a simple one: a common goal. Space race, anyone?”

One of the best would be alien invasion.

Actually immediately after typing that I can see many flaws – a broken down truck generally has a fairly clear solution – everyone would have vastly different thoughts on how to deal with aliens – attack, surrender, deny, worship…

truebedoo

Posted 02 July 2006 at 05:57 am

I believe the point of this experiment was to show that despite similarities in the boy’s backgrounds conflict and competition still arise, thus, proving that if you add outside differences among the test subjects from the very beginning it will just exacerbate the conflict and competition. Remember they had to change the parameters of the experiment mid stream to prevent violent conflict. The age-old adage is true; my enemy’s enemy is my friend. In this experience the ‘enemy’ was the car and other obstacles they put in the way of the boys to get them to work together.

Elgatitoandaluz – In the height of the conflict in Ireland there was a program (an experiment of sorts) that brought teenagers from both sides to the United States for camp. They were divided into groups (not based on religious lines) and set up with a series of tasks, competitions, and counseling. In the beginning, it was always the same, the Protestants would go one way in their groups and the Catholics another, however by the end of the camp the outcome was the same as well. Protestants and Catholics would work together and become friends. There were a few who held on tight to their ‘side’ but the majority put their religious differences aside and when returned to Ireland brought their experience of conflict resolution to their communities.

Crispy

Posted 02 July 2006 at 06:35 am

didinskee said: “First! Yey!”

People claiming “first post” just because they can are annoying. :-/

Good article!

didinskee

Posted 02 July 2006 at 08:12 am

Crispy said: “People claiming “first post” just because they can are annoying. :-/

And oft, my jealousy shapes faults that are not. ~William Shakespeare

kimota

Posted 02 July 2006 at 09:25 am

I’d have to say that truebedoo gets the point: it’s perceived differences, regardless of how slight they may seem to others, that becomes the fuel for divisiveness. Hence the “People’s Front of Judea” joke in The Life of Brian.

dreamin

Posted 02 July 2006 at 11:49 am

Part of the story reminds me of my experiences after 9/11. I live in an area that is fairly equally divided between whites and African-Americans. After 9/11 I noticed that blacks looked at me (a white person) with less suspicion and fear. There was a sense that we were on the same side for once, though this feeling lasted less than a year.

Carl

Posted 02 July 2006 at 12:18 pm

The point made was that cultural differences were not an essential element in order for conflict to arise. As previous posters have noted, cultural differences make it easier for conflict, but even that can be overcome given the right circumstances.

Sylph-DS

Posted 02 July 2006 at 12:30 pm

I doubt humanity has a “broken down truck”, and if it does, groups will form again soon after. Unless a group is in constant battle with an “enemy”, they won’t stay a group.

As said in the article, certain boys became leaders. This would also happen on a bigger scale. Certain people become leaders, their followers try to convince the followers of other leaders that their leader is the best, conflict and the splitting up of the group ensues.

Lazyass

Posted 02 July 2006 at 12:57 pm

Quarter_witted said: “Damn Interesting they could achieve all this in just two and half weeks. Now just think of what would have happened if they used girls as the test subjects. Frozen underwear escalating into hair flying slap fights?”

Actually, I would be very intersted in seeing how this study would have turned out had they used girls. I think it ould be very different.

Adam

Posted 02 July 2006 at 08:15 pm

This article was very interesting and thought-provoking. I love this site!

seventoes

Posted 02 July 2006 at 08:38 pm

Acctually if you think about this article, this is exactly what happened globally. Nations started, hierarchical statuses and roles were established (kings, presidents, peasents), and each nation became enemies with other nations.

Marisa Brook

Posted 02 July 2006 at 09:06 pm

Adam said: “This article was very interesting and thought-provoking. I love this site!”

Likewise. So are all these comments! Thanks for your input, everyone.

Personally, I think truebedoo has it right for this experiment – but Marius has an interesting point. This does tie into the mentioned importance of group loyalty, but here’s something I neglected to mention in the bit about criticisms. A 1997 study (outlined in the University of Cape Town presentation) concluded that groups at a relative disadvantage to the other – perhaps economic, social, anything – can feel more loyalty to the outgroup than to their own. Thinking in terms of real-world situations (as seventoes suggests!), this is quite clear.

Marisa Brook

Posted 02 July 2006 at 09:34 pm

Sounds as if some doctorate candidate was looking for theory after already having an observation. Then again, you can’t make a case out of 22 campers. You’re two short!”

I think they actually did select 24 originally, but for whatever reason two of the boys were either unavailable or unusable at the last minute. (Usable isn’t such a great word to describe people, but you know what I mean…hehe.)

The point about it all having the potential to be very, very different with girls is interesting, too. Girls are definitely more subtle and quietly manipulative (thinking of ‘Odd Girl Out’ and the like), and the arguably runaway materialism in Western culture does originate primary in girls. Hmm. Sense I an article idea? Nifty.

Marisa Brook

Posted 02 July 2006 at 09:36 pm

Materialism, that is, of the shallowness/appearance-discrimination variety, that is, just to clarify.

Okay. End overlong sequence of posts by the author. * grins *

Vivendi

Posted 03 July 2006 at 02:33 am

Interesting study, but as with most psychological experiments, it’s not exactly a science and there is a great difference between harmless fun in a supervised environment and the real life. The boys must’ve known that there were adults around, so some of them may have not acted as they would in a real life situation.

And that reminds me of Lord of the Flies by William Golding, I think I’ll go to the library and read it again. The boys in that book were all from a similar background if I remember correctly and put in an environment with no adults, law, etc… , but some were stronger physically than others and well… it lead to some interesting events. Go read it if you want to know more.. :)

Great article but I’m always psychological skeptical of experiments like these, the subjects will never act completely the same as they would in a real life situation so I don’t see how they form theories from these experiments and apply them.

Again great article Marisa and the comments really do add a lot to the article (except the first post comments, not really a problem on this site so I can tolerate it.) Hmm perhaps a study needs to be done to find out what compels a person to declare that. Maybe didinskee could tell us.

Vivendi

Posted 03 July 2006 at 02:38 am

Ugh, bunch of errors in there, should’ve re-read it. An edit function would certainly help a lot. I mean, yes there’s a preview but somehow I never really catch my own mistakes easily until I post.

sulkykid

Posted 03 July 2006 at 11:26 am

What Vivendi said: this is not exactly science. Not even close. It sounds more like the researcher had pre-existing expectations, and the groups did what he expected. No surprise there.

schuylercat

Posted 03 July 2006 at 12:48 pm

I remember this one. This article triggered a lot of memories for me, too: I was in track in high school. I can still hear the sniping, the snarky commentary, and I used to hang with some of those guys from the other schools on weekends. It was actually expected behavior in the group competitive setting…and after the meet was over everyone lay down their swords and went “back to normal”, whatever that was. And I always wondered why.

I didn’t just read this article: I FELT this article. It shrieks “our team is RED HOT!!! Your team ain’t DOODLY SQUAT!!!”

And Vivendi – it remind me of Lord of the Flies as well. My entire time in high school did.

WCASD

Posted 03 July 2006 at 08:41 pm

“Another was that major differences in background are not necessary for conflict to emerge.”

But I thought “Sherif and his colleagues had looked for boys of similar age and intelligence, all Caucasian and Protestant, all middle-class, none from insecure homes and none known to be troublemakers.”???

Arcangel

Posted 03 July 2006 at 09:19 pm

Well this all just sounds like a very, very early, untelevised version of the Survivor series.

truebedoo said: “In the height of the conflict in Ireland there was a program (an experiment of sorts) that brought teenagers from both sides to the United States for camp. They were divided into groups (not based on religious lines) and set up with a series of tasks, competitions, and counseling. In the beginning, it was always the same, the Protestants would go one way in their groups and the Catholics another, however by the end of the camp the outcome was the same as well. Protestants and Catholics would work together and become friends. There were a few who held on tight to their ‘side’ but the majority put their religious differences aside and when returned to Ireland brought their experience of conflict resolution to their communities.”

This same thing was done with Israeli and Palestinian boys with in the last dozen years or so with the same outcome. I understand it is still done today.

Captain Fluffy

Posted 03 July 2006 at 11:11 pm

Sigh! Of course the kids knew there were adults around – it was a summer camp! Exactly the same sort of thing that thousands of kids did and do every summer. The only difference was that this was an experiment.

The test as to whether or not this was good science is whether you can actually make a good argument of how the fact that this was an experiment resulted in different behaviour than if it wasn’t one (apologies for that sentence!) I appreciate that Vivendi and others might not like psychology as a discipline, but it’s not good enough to make that the argument for why one can’t trust the results of a particular study. Similarly, Sherif wasn’t a grad student trying to justiffy his expectations.

If anyone is interested, the original account of the study can be found at:

There was also a final unpublished variation on this study, run by the same researchers, that apparently failed miserably when the two groups turned on the camp organisers!

truebedoo

Posted 04 July 2006 at 06:58 am

Marisa said – “the arguably runaway materialism in Western culture does originate primary in girls”

Actually I would say that the runaway materialism in Western culture started with the marketing community, which as is the case for 99% of the jobs in the U.S., is male-dominiated.

Misfit7707

Posted 04 July 2006 at 04:53 pm

Lord of the Flies freaked me out.

To summarize, I WOULD like to see this experiment redone with people from varying backgrounds, sexes, etc…. obviously the same age, though. And then also with combinations and permutations. It would be very interesting.

Also, since it was written that the boys who could do more damage to the other group were given higher respect, did the hierarchal structure change? At that point, did other boys within the groups replace their leaders or what?

What if it were all girls, as well? Maybe it would be something akin to Mean Girls.

What about physical or mental characteristics? What exactly determined who was the leader in each group?

Also, the size of the groups is interesting to think about. At what point (in terms of the number of children in one group) would the boys break up and form their own groups of buddies, regardless of how many other boys were physically presented to each other initially?

One other thing I would like to know…
It was written that they wanted the boys to be all the same age and background, race, religion, etc… but all other factors were allowed to be different. One thing, though. All of the children’s parents were perfectly fine with their child taking part in a psychological experiment. Obviously neccessary of course, but what does that say about the children in terms of heredity? Were the children genetically inclined to be go-getters because of what types of parents they lived with and were born from, or were some of these boys “better-safe-than-sorry-children” regardless? Who knows? It might not even matter all that much, just something to ponder over.

One more thing. Did the kids, once banded together as one BIG group, come up with a name for themselves?

Marisa Brook

Posted 04 July 2006 at 11:48 pm

truebedoo says: Actually I would say that the runaway materialism in Western culture started with the marketing community, which as is the case for 99% of the jobs in the U.S., is male-dominiated.”

Fair enough. But they (some marketers, anyway) like to take advantage of the instincts that many teenage girls have in the first place for being nasty, competitive, and shallow. (‘Branded’ and the like come to mind.) I admit I have a vicious antimaterialistic streak. * grins *

Misfit7707: interesting questions! The ones I can help out with a bit:

Misfit7707 said: Also, since it was written that the boys who could do more damage to the other group were given higher respect, did the hierarchal structure change? At that point, did other boys within the groups replace their leaders or what?

What about physical or mental characteristics? What exactly determined who was the leader in each group?

As maddening as it sounds, apparently it was just natural leadership ability! The boys who became the most admired initially – in the conflict stage – were the ones who were the so-described ‘effective initiators’, the ones whose suggestions were relatively frequent and the most consistently liked. By the end of the conflict stage, each group had one boy considered the natural leader. This did change a bit over time (one of them was ‘replaced’ entirely), but the position was certainly there. The leaders were all were likely among the more assertive boys at the camp (able to make good suggestions, willing to take action, stand up for the group, get the group enthusiastic about itself and its plans, etc. – classic qualities of leaders!). Check out the link Captain Fluffy provided (especially Chapters 4 and 6, for this specifically) – it’s arguably a bit less accessible than the overview here, but it has very detailed coverage of the experiment’s progression!

One more thing. Did the kids, once banded together as one BIG group, come up with a name for themselves?”

Not to my knowledge, although (at a guess) it may just have been because there was no need, what with it being the entire camp.

JustAnotherName

Posted 05 July 2006 at 07:10 am

A typical day at the office.

Vanya

Posted 05 July 2006 at 02:16 pm

When I was in the sixth grade, something similar happened naturally. We were all white, middle class. Two groups (we thought of them as gangs) formed, the Jets and the Sharks (yeah, it was the 60s). We had about a dozen members each. We called each other names, leaders emerged, etc. We even had one of our group join the other to act as a spy. The whole thing culminated in a waterballoon fight (sounds really lame, I know, but we were pretty sheltered and naive). After that the whole thing kind of fizzled out and we went back to having small cliques. Little did we know we were on the cutting edge of sociology!

Jonathan Field

Posted 05 July 2006 at 10:42 pm

Perhaps a little late, but if you found this article interesting I remember first reading about this study in a thought provoking book called “The Nurture Assumption”. Had other similarly interesting studies as examples and some challenging conclusions. Just thought I’d recommend it for the curious — it’s damn interesting!

OmniNegro

Posted 06 July 2006 at 11:05 pm

They should have given them weapons and suggested that the “others” are planning to attack them.

Another cold war, this time in a summer-camp.

Perhaps set some tents on fire while they sleep to make them suspect the “others” did it.

But each step of this would be criminal, and horrible at best.

Sadly, on a long-enough time-line all of this will happen in some form anyway.

People choose association with those that either have similar interests, or those that are useful.

People make enemies of those that don’t fit either of those tho categories.

If I was in one of those groups I would have likely been “exiled” by whatever “side” I was on.

I never fit the profile of mandatory bullshit alliances.

I can not see how my arrival on “bus A” makes me different from those arriving on “bus B” and I generally hate those who insist on some sort of petty differences having some sort of intrinsic value.

We have enough pathetic reasons to hate one-another, without reinforcing the ideals of segregation by fostering ignorant behavior in children.

Is it not enough to hate everyone for different physical appearance, or different opinions and philosophy?

Those who performed this experiment knowingly assisted these poor kids at establishing a pattern of discontent, if not aggression, for those who are different.

I wish we were not subject to such ignorant fears and useless differential posturing, but we are, and have always been.

noway

Posted 07 July 2006 at 06:46 am

Vanya said: “When I was in the sixth grade, something similar happened naturally. We were all white, middle class. Two groups (we thought of them as gangs) formed, the Jets and the Sharks (yeah, it was the 60s). We had about a dozen members each. We called each other names, leaders emerged, etc. We even had one of our group join the other to act as a spy. The whole thing culminated in a waterballoon fight (sounds really lame, I know, but we were pretty sheltered and naive). After that the whole thing kind of fizzled out and we went back to having small cliques. Little did we know we were on the cutting edge of sociology!”

LOL…awesome…PS boys are better than gurls!

noway

Posted 07 July 2006 at 06:50 am

o, btw, I agree with the above…you guys (Damn Interesting) need an edit function for these posts…

good piece Marisa

Joshua

Posted 11 July 2006 at 08:23 am

“Survivor: Robber’s Cave”

manni

Posted 13 July 2006 at 06:03 pm

lol a balloon fight ahh i remember those hehe the only problem is when your balloon explodes from too much pressure when your about to throw it

Stead311

Posted 08 August 2006 at 06:47 am

I heard about this from my psych class and my philosophy class. It is very interesting to see what a common goal can do to a group of people. It isn’t that hard to believe that if we have different interests there would be fighting among us.

So… a thought to ponder.. wouldn’t it be nice if the world had a common goal?

mwace

Posted 26 September 2006 at 11:17 am

Why hasn’t it occoured to anybody that there might be a rather significent sociological difference between ten year old middle class white christian boys and the variety of groups that people are trying to apply these sociological tendancies towards? Considering the level of detail that whent into the study, this is a rather significent assumption thats been left unaddressed.

Jeffrey93

Posted 16 March 2007 at 12:18 pm

I think if the boys were from different backgrounds, races, religions, etc. It would have led to more initial conflict within the group, but eventually the group would gel in an attempt to be better than the other group. Differences would be set aside to dominate over the other group. At which point, the differences might again raise conflict, especially if the group failed to best the other group.

The article is bang on about failure of the group activities. If they had failed blame would have been laid making the groups less likely to participate in a co-op nature in the future.

A co-op activity could bring the world together, as long as it was important to everyone and failure was impossible. Because, if we failed….you could expect a war. At the very least, a very stand-offish attitude would settle over the globe for quite some time.

actionplant

Posted 03 April 2007 at 01:21 pm

The snake in your picture is of a Burmese python, which is not any kind of “rattler” whatsoever. Some may see this as a nit-pick, but if it’s not that important why not use a picture of a cockatoo instead of an actual eagle?

“When individuals having no established relationships are brought together to interact in group activities with common goals, they produce a group structure with hierarchical statuses and roles within it. ”
So hard to describe a few words like co-operating with strangers.

Share This Page

Comments

Scroll to Top
⇧

HALP

Sorry to interrupt.It seems you've really digging into our curated links.We put a lot of effort into finding these gems.Please consider donating so we can keep up the effort.Would you like to know more?

Sorry to interrupt.It seems you've read at least whole articles now.Yay!This is a reader-supported project, and you can get stuff for donating.Would you like to know more?

Hello! This site is an independent project.We despise advertising so we ask for direct support from readers.If you donate you can get stuff.Would you like to know more?